Narrative:

Departed sna on mussel 6 SID, initially stopped at 5000 ft (autoplt engaged), turned left to 90 degrees to intercept sxc 61 degree radial of SID, then cleared to 7000 ft. Lots of VFR traffic, very nice day. Noticed traffic on TCASII at our 2 O'clock position, maybe between 8-10 mi converging, descending out of 8400 ft. I can't remember if he was called to us as traffic, as there was a constant stream of radio traffic. We were called as traffic to this aircraft (I was unaware of the type at the time and we had no visual) and I heard him acknowledge us in sight. I engaged LNAV for the SID as we crossed the radial. Leaving 6800 ft we received a 'monitor vertical speed' advisory, and leveled at 7000 ft. Immediately we received a 'climb' RA, I disconnected the autoplt, advanced the thrust levers and began the climb. At 7200 ft the learjet appeared in the first officer's window above us on a converging course. I immediately turned left to avoid the aircraft, and stopped the climb, with the aircraft passing above and to our right. We informed ATC of the RA, returned to 7000 ft and were vectored back to the SID. I got the phone number for socal before being handed off to ZLA. On arrival, I called socal and spoke to the supervisor who was monitoring our controller. He said the lear was VFR, had us in sight for a long time and was TCASII equipped. I asked if it was the 'tis' GA TCASII or real TCASII, and he said his tag was for real TCASII, and that the lear received a 'climb' RA from us, and was initiating the climb when we turned away from him. I cannot understand why we were both given a 'climb' RA unless the lear's TCASII was the 'old' software. It is my belief that by both of us following the RA's, we placed our aircraft in more of a conflict instead of resolution. Perhaps his descent and our climb triggered the alerts. We were level at 7000 ft when we received our RA, and I believe that the lear was level at 7500 ft when the event occurred. The last RA I received in sna was on arrival some months ago, level at 5000 ft over huntington beach. A bonanza passing left to right level at 5500 ft triggered the 'descend' RA, leading me to think now that anytime we are within 500 ft of another aircraft (happens all the time in socal), we are going to receive an RA, and we have no choice but to respond, as I did in this event and will in future events. I would like to know if there are any statistics being compiled by ATC and or the FAA regarding TCASII events like this? Is there a possibility that our TCASII system might be creating conflict when one doesn't exist? Possibly the best measure to prevent these conflicts is to be vectored away from VFR traffic, not into the path, which is difficult, I know, because of the nature of VFR versus IFR and the saturation of airspace. Perhaps if we went a little further out from sna and got more altitude before turning east for the SID, we would avoid more aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 DEP FROM SNA EXPERIENCED TCASII RA WITH VFR LEARJET AT 7000 FT.

Narrative: DEPARTED SNA ON MUSSEL 6 SID, INITIALLY STOPPED AT 5000 FT (AUTOPLT ENGAGED), TURNED L TO 90 DEGS TO INTERCEPT SXC 61 DEG RADIAL OF SID, THEN CLRED TO 7000 FT. LOTS OF VFR TFC, VERY NICE DAY. NOTICED TFC ON TCASII AT OUR 2 O'CLOCK POS, MAYBE BTWN 8-10 MI CONVERGING, DSNDING OUT OF 8400 FT. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF HE WAS CALLED TO US AS TFC, AS THERE WAS A CONSTANT STREAM OF RADIO TFC. WE WERE CALLED AS TFC TO THIS ACFT (I WAS UNAWARE OF THE TYPE AT THE TIME AND WE HAD NO VISUAL) AND I HEARD HIM ACKNOWLEDGE US IN SIGHT. I ENGAGED LNAV FOR THE SID AS WE CROSSED THE RADIAL. LEAVING 6800 FT WE RECEIVED A 'MONITOR VERT SPD' ADVISORY, AND LEVELED AT 7000 FT. IMMEDIATELY WE RECEIVED A 'CLB' RA, I DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT, ADVANCED THE THRUST LEVERS AND BEGAN THE CLB. AT 7200 FT THE LEARJET APPEARED IN THE FO'S WINDOW ABOVE US ON A CONVERGING COURSE. I IMMEDIATELY TURNED L TO AVOID THE ACFT, AND STOPPED THE CLB, WITH THE ACFT PASSING ABOVE AND TO OUR R. WE INFORMED ATC OF THE RA, RETURNED TO 7000 FT AND WERE VECTORED BACK TO THE SID. I GOT THE PHONE NUMBER FOR SOCAL BEFORE BEING HANDED OFF TO ZLA. ON ARR, I CALLED SOCAL AND SPOKE TO THE SUPVR WHO WAS MONITORING OUR CTLR. HE SAID THE LEAR WAS VFR, HAD US IN SIGHT FOR A LONG TIME AND WAS TCASII EQUIPPED. I ASKED IF IT WAS THE 'TIS' GA TCASII OR REAL TCASII, AND HE SAID HIS TAG WAS FOR REAL TCASII, AND THAT THE LEAR RECEIVED A 'CLB' RA FROM US, AND WAS INITIATING THE CLB WHEN WE TURNED AWAY FROM HIM. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE WERE BOTH GIVEN A 'CLB' RA UNLESS THE LEAR'S TCASII WAS THE 'OLD' SOFTWARE. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT BY BOTH OF US FOLLOWING THE RA'S, WE PLACED OUR ACFT IN MORE OF A CONFLICT INSTEAD OF RESOLUTION. PERHAPS HIS DSCNT AND OUR CLB TRIGGERED THE ALERTS. WE WERE LEVEL AT 7000 FT WHEN WE RECEIVED OUR RA, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE LEAR WAS LEVEL AT 7500 FT WHEN THE EVENT OCCURRED. THE LAST RA I RECEIVED IN SNA WAS ON ARR SOME MONTHS AGO, LEVEL AT 5000 FT OVER HUNTINGTON BEACH. A BONANZA PASSING L TO R LEVEL AT 5500 FT TRIGGERED THE 'DSND' RA, LEADING ME TO THINK NOW THAT ANYTIME WE ARE WITHIN 500 FT OF ANOTHER ACFT (HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN SOCAL), WE ARE GOING TO RECEIVE AN RA, AND WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO RESPOND, AS I DID IN THIS EVENT AND WILL IN FUTURE EVENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY STATISTICS BEING COMPILED BY ATC AND OR THE FAA REGARDING TCASII EVENTS LIKE THIS? IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT OUR TCASII SYS MIGHT BE CREATING CONFLICT WHEN ONE DOESN'T EXIST? POSSIBLY THE BEST MEASURE TO PREVENT THESE CONFLICTS IS TO BE VECTORED AWAY FROM VFR TFC, NOT INTO THE PATH, WHICH IS DIFFICULT, I KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF VFR VERSUS IFR AND THE SATURATION OF AIRSPACE. PERHAPS IF WE WENT A LITTLE FURTHER OUT FROM SNA AND GOT MORE ALT BEFORE TURNING E FOR THE SID, WE WOULD AVOID MORE ACFT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.